UKRAINE Trends and Developments Contributed by: Oleksandr Mamunya, Ganna Prokhorova, Oksana Padokh and Maksym Shymanskyi, Mamunya IP
approved them with minor recommendations. The adoption of these laws and their entry into force is planned for 2026–2027. IP Rights and Military Service On 4 November 2025, the Verkhovna Rada passed, in second reading and as a whole, Draft Law No 13110 “On Amendments to the Civil Code of Ukraine Regard - ing Intellectual Property Rights in Objects Created in Connection with Military Service”. The law will enter into force on 12 December 2025. The reform aims to introduce a clear statutory frame - work for determining ownership of IP generated by servicemembers during the performance of their offi - cial duties, addressing long-standing uncertainty in this area. The law amends several Civil Code provisions, most notably: • clarification of Article 429 (IP rights to work for hire) by expressly extending its scope to IP created by servicemembers in the course of military service and in fulfilment of their official duties; • personal non-property rights in such works are confirmed as belonging to the servicemembers who created them; • economic (property) IP rights in such works are assigned to the entities designated by law, thereby aligning military-service-related IP with standard service-creation principles; and • expansion of the list of IP rights-holders in Article 421 to include “other participants in civil relations”, ensuring more accurate reflection of the range of potential rights-holders. These changes are expected to create a predict - able, transparent regime for allocating and register - ing IP rights to military-service-related creations. This includes technologies and innovations critical to national defence (many of which are currently devel - oped within military units or state defence structures), as well as a wide range of copyright and design objects, and potential trade marks, which may arise in the course of military service. Such works may include software and algorithms developed for defence oper - ations, technical documentation, training materials,
graphic insignia or emblems, user interfaces, indus - trial designs for equipment components, camouflage patterns, or even distinctive unit identifiers that could function as trade marks. The adoption of these amendments represents an important structural step for Ukraine’s IP system. By clearly defining ownership rules for creations developed in the context of military service, the law reduces legal uncertainty, mitigates the risk of dis - putes between the State and individual creators, and provides a coherent framework for commercialisation and technology transfer. In the broader context of ongoing security challenges, this reform strengthens institutional trust and helps ensure that innovations produced within the defence sector, whether techno - logical, creative or organisational, can be effectively protected, managed and deployed for the benefit of national security and economic resilience. Landmark Decisions Over the past year, the Supreme Court and the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court have delivered several significant rulings that reshape key aspects of trade mark enforcement. These decisions provide greater predictability for rights-holders, strengthen legal cer - tainty for businesses operating in Ukraine, and signal the judiciary’s growing role in developing a modern, coherent IP jurisprudence. Eurokesh SA v PJSC Dominus-K LLC & NIPO (Case No 910/8781/23, Grand Chamber of Supreme Court decision, 5 March 2025) A recent landmark judgment of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court has provided long-awaited clar - ity on whether the five-year non-use period for early cancellation of a trade mark is affected by a change in ownership. The dispute arose after Eurokesh SA sought early cancellation of a Ukrainian trade mark owned by Dominus-K LLC on the ground that the mark had not been used in Ukraine for the past five years, allegedly preventing the claimant from secur - ing protection for its own marks. The first-instance court rejected the claim, holding that the five-year period should be calculated from the date Dominus- K acquired the rights from the previous owner. The appellate court reversed, finding that the relevant legislation requires continuous use of the mark itself,
647 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook